The stories linked together above show one hell of an ominous event trajectory. Can you write something more substantial than a single sentence to
explain what exactly is supposed to be BS? The original 4chan post (which I already prefaced with a rather huge disclaimer in the OP if you
bothered to read it)? The Washington Post articles? Donald Trump's own son on the subject of their Russian business relationships? Are the attacks on
our election system BS too?

Or was your reply a general, "I know everything and you're wrong because I love Trump and he would never lie to me about wanting to make America Great
Again" canard, which is almost never worth responding to? Hint: Trump doesn't give a sh*t about you. Hillary doesn't either. Almost every news outlet
and politician sells lies when it suits them. The only way to know what's going on in the world is to connect mutually concurring and independent
facts, that when spread out over time show a consistent event trajectory. Outside of that no one knows anything. The events outlined here show a
pattern, if you disagree, explain why.

My only thought on this is that 4Chan has been the source of numerous pranks and hoaxes in the past, and many anons deliberately surface silly stories
on that board to see how far they will circulate.

Remember the story that MH370 had been hijacked by black ops and flown to Diego Garcia, where a hostage dictated a 4Chan post via a speech-activated
iPhone he'd hidden in his rectum? In fact, how could you forget, it's still being repeated as fact on some sites despite the obvious gag being that
the 'hostage' was literally talking out of his ass.

Remember the fact that 4Chan tried to nullify the UK Government's official petition to re-ballot the EU Referendum, by using signatories from as far
afield as Antarctica and Vatican City?

This story is too detailed (do we really need to know where the 'source' was sitting when he typed all this?), too vague in its predictions, and --
most importantly -- the theories about election-hacking were already doing the rounds before he posted on 4Chan. If you look at the date, and then
Google carefully, you can find stories about this presidential cycle dating back months beforehand (I stopped at April 2016), and in the last
presidential cycle there were similar stories doing the rounds.

If you're wondering about how the 4Chan guy managed to 'predict' Russian involvement, well, put it this way. Who would you 'predict' if you were
constructing a hoax? Ernst Blofeld is a fictional character, Fidel Castro's IT skills don't stretch that far, and Osama bin Laden is dead (oh yes he
is!).

That leaves Kim Jong-Un and Vladimir Putin. Kim is a backyard despot whose concerns don't stretch beyond South Korea, which leaves Bad Vlad as the
obvious villain of the piece.

The stories about Russia hacking the election might turn out to be true, but the idea that someone on 4Chan leaked the details in advance (for no
reward, despite it being an absolutely dynamite story) simply does not wash.

The stories about Russia hacking the election might turn out to be true, but the idea that someone on 4Chan leaked the details in advance (for
no reward, despite it being an absolutely dynamite story) simply does not wash. ...

The DNC break-ins had already occurred so it could easily be the original posters used that as the basis for the story. The dates are included in the
OP so people can see the timeline clearly for themselves (Aug. 7th post on 4chan vs Jul. 29th DNC hack NY Times story). This was an indirect attack
against the election process rather than the more directed attacks on voting infrastructure we're seeing now as predicted by anon. The DNC hacks don't
directly infer an attack on voting databases. Adding that to the story would have had to have been a creative leap by the anon.

Also the connection between Trump and Russia arguably hadn't yet caught fire. Moreover, the idea that the threat would be dramatic enough that the US
government would involve all levels of the intelligence community seemed laughable. Yet, that has
since happened, as called by the 4chan anon.

Do I think there's going to be a coup? No. Do I think Trump is housing Russian spetsnatz? No. However just looking at these boards it is beyond
evident there is a visceral level of hate for Hillary far beyond anything that existed for Obama in 2008 and 2012. This thread alone provides plenty
of evidence of Russian sympathizers and people who have a hardon for Putin despite Putin's obvious disdain for the West and particularly the United
States. So could it happen that people would trade their allegiances and that the US military would have the foresight to re-examine their entry-level
employees to make sure there's no internal insurrection in the lead up to the election? Absolutely.

When a person makes an accurate prediction they shouldn't be so easily hand-waved away.

The IB Times story actually illustrates rather well the reasons that a 'Deep Throat' would be stupid to go to 4Chan, since it was doing so that led to
his detection and arrest!

As for the Trump-Putin love-in, Trump was singing Putin's praises as far back as November 2015 (!) during a GOP primary debate. And on 27 July this
year, he made that infamous 'joke' encouraging Putin to hack Hillary's emails. There's other stuff, but the basic material was already 'out there' and
ready to be misused, way before the 4Chan post appeared.

Moreover, Russia was fingered (rightly or wrongly) in the Guccifer 2.0 hack of DNC, back in June, the supposed motive being to obtain Democrat
research on how to beat Trump, so the notion of Russian hacking being connected to the forthcoming General Election and directed against the Dems was
already taking shape. See: www.bbc.co.uk...

And here is a story explicitly linking the DNC hack to the possibility of electronic election-rigging by Russia.
www.theguardian.com...

You'll note that the dateline on that story is 6 August 2016 and it refers to speculation that was taking place over the preceeding weeks.

Predicting that many levels of US intelligence and security would be engaged in investigating and countering a hostile threat to the integrity of the
US presidential elections is like predicting that a terrorist attack will cause chaos and the perpetrator will not be identified immediately. It's the
sort of prediction anyone could make, because it's so obvious. It's not actually a prediction at all, it's a statement of the obvious -- yes, if there
is a terrorist attack then there will be chaos etc. It doesn't need to be very precise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the Russian cyber-rigging theory that is still under investigation. That might turn out to be true. I'm saying
that the information posted on 4Chan was already in circulation and that his predictions were so vague that they require you to re-interpret things
that have already happened in order for them to make sense.

Sort of like Nostradamus, who only gave one sort-of-precise date (a month and a year) in his entire Quatrains, and on that date absolutely
nothing happened at all. However, everyone ignores that one and argues over all the others that aren't so precise!

This isn't 'hand-waving', which is an infuriating refusal to engage with a subject. This is active engagement and on engagement the material in
question isn't very credible. I don't believe it, but we're still allowed to disagree and you might put some credence in it. I'll be impressed if it
can be shown that a single prediction has been made that is

(a) not simply a truism;
(b) doesn't repeat material that already existed; and
(b) can be identified before it is 'fulfilled'.

Anyway, I'll shut up now. I've said my piece, and I've already been identified as a suspected shill on another thread, and I don't want to blow my
cover...

originally posted by: audubon
TL;DR - Most times, art imitates life, not the other way round.

Predator is a good example of this. That is sarcasm, but not in the typical condescending way people dispense sarcasm online. I think art is just art.
It only imitates reality when the creator has no original ideas.

The IB Times story actually illustrates rather well the reasons that a 'Deep Throat' would be stupid to go to 4Chan, since it was doing so that
led to his detection and arrest!

I guess the same could be said for Wikileaks then. Bradley Manning would certainly have been better off if he hadn't involved himself with Assange.

The problem wasn't 4chan. The problem was that Michael Scerba didn't know how to use anonymizing services or wasn't aware he just go to a local cafe
to share the documents. If he had done either of those things 4chan is pretty good as far as clearnet anonymous forums go, due to the short lifespan
of a thread and the intentional design to anonymize posts with a random alphanumeric id.

As for the Trump-Putin love-in, Trump was singing Putin's praises as far back as November 2015 (!) during a GOP primary debate. And on 27 July
this year, he made that infamous 'joke' encouraging Putin to hack Hillary's emails. There's other stuff, but the basic material was already 'out
there' and ready to be misused, way before the 4Chan post appeared.

A general sense of magnanimity is completely different from having numerous business deals with the Russians. The details surrounding the business
relationship was still being established.

Moreover, Russia was fingered (rightly or wrongly) in the Guccifer 2.0 hack of DNC, back in June, the supposed motive being to obtain Democrat
research on how to beat Trump, so the notion of Russian hacking being connected to the forthcoming General Election and directed against the Dems was
already taking shape. See: www.bbc.co.uk...

Breaking into a computer to extract information from a network is vastly different from covertly modifying voter information and trying to convince
officials the changes are legitimate.

And here is a story explicitly linking the DNC hack to the possibility of electronic election-rigging by Russia.
www.theguardian.com...

You'll note that the dateline on that story is 6 August 2016 and it refers to speculation that was taking place over the preceeding
weeks.

The Poincaré conjecture was nearly solved by Richard Hamilton, but it took Grigori Perelman to put all the pieces together in such a way to get the
proof to work. Many elements of the story were circulating, but none of them had been put together the way they were on 4chan.

Predicting that many levels of US intelligence and security would be engaged in investigating and countering a hostile threat to the integrity
of the US presidential elections is like predicting that a terrorist attack will cause chaos and the perpetrator will not be identified immediately.
It's the sort of prediction anyone could make, because it's so obvious. It's not actually a prediction at all, it's a statement of the obvious -- yes,
if there is a terrorist attack then there will be chaos etc. It doesn't need to be very precise.

Making a prediction that all levels of government intelligence would actively engage the problem of a nation-state attacking our voting systems
would require an actual attack (which happened post-the 4chan article) not just a single hack against a political party revealing their campaign
material.

This isn't vague like you are making it out to be. Small breakins to diebold machines and
websites are
a semi-common occurrence and have never warranted this type of governmental involvement before.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the Russian cyber-rigging theory that is still under investigation. That might turn out to be true. I'm
saying that the information posted on 4Chan was already in circulation and that his predictions were so vague that they require you to re-interpret
things that have already happened in order for them to make sense.

What part of the 4chan post did you find vague?

I work in the armory at a base in NC. A special bunch of Nasty Girls.

We've just been briefed on something that scares the # out of me. There is actionable intel that there will be widespread electronic voting fraud, and
that Putin will leak proof along with other dirt on certain candidates, and the USA will collapse into civil #ing war. Russian spetsnatz are going to
serve as advisors for whatever insurgency emerges and overthrows the existing 'corrupt government'. There is also intel that one of the candidates has
actively funded this, cooperated with Putin, and used their existing owned resources to station and quarter Spetsnatz around the #ing country.

Every unit is being re-assigned multiple interpreters who speak Russian. Lower level units are being re-tested and I've heard directly that the tests
and questions are specifically about whether they would be willing to detain, intern, and execute 'traitors to the Federal Government'.

I will post more proof (that keeps me safe) later on. I can share this much info because my brothers will not sell me out but too much might get our
whole unit grounded and vanished.

When I read the 4chan post it was almost too specific- like the russian spetsnatz for example.

I don't believe it, but we're still allowed to disagree and you might put some credence in it. I'll be impressed if it can be shown that a
single prediction has been made that is

(a) not simply a truism;
(b) doesn't repeat material that already existed; and
(c) can be identified before it is 'fulfilled'.

I don't see any truisms. If a person was crafting a story to stir the pot certain elements could have been guessed at. There were certainly stories
circulating, but again putting all the details together in a unique way makes it something different.

The part that was identified "before it [was] fulfilled" is the prediction of massive US military and governmental intelligence involvement to defend
against external tampering with the vote. You might think this is obvious, but I don't think the government wastes four agencies time on nonsense,
when the agencies aren't even admitting the Russians were behind the initial attacks on the DNC.

Anyway, I'll shut up now. I've said my piece, and I've already been identified as a suspected shill on another thread, and I don't want to
blow my cover...

You seem pretty genuine to me. I see no shilling, just you stating the way you see things.

Well, we shall see. I don't have much to add to what I posted above. I'd skipped over the Spetsnaz element of the prediction, but now you raise the
subject the 4Chan poster appears to have missed the fact that Spetsnaz was disbanded a few years ago.

But OK, let's assume he means either some super-secret Spetsnaz that no-one knows about and has survived its disbanding, or he means former Spetsnaz
soldiers now operational in the reformed brigades. It's possible he was using the term as shorthand, I suppose. This is one element of the prediction
that might come true (if you accept this serious twisting of what the guy said, in order to make it work).

But again, the reason I don't buy this is because Spetsnaz are special forces -- the best analogy is that they are Russia's version of the UK's famous
SAS. They're shock troops for special operations, not advisors, except in the sense that US troops in Vietnam were euphemistically referred to as
'advisors', and the idea that they'd be much use to a new regime (if one arose) is a bit far-fetched.

After looking at all the facts, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Donald Trump is a Russian plant working for Putin to create a false flag
election event that will undermine the US government.

What you're choosing to ignore is that the 4Chan hoaxer specifically said that this chaos would arise as a result of proof of electronic
vote-rigging.

No. Actually, I am not. So the attacks against the election system by Russia across numerous states election systems, as confirmed by the entire
United States intelligence community, isn't substantive in your opinion?

At what point would it become meaningful? Or is there no bar at which point this could actually be tested? Without some litmus test, you have a
position that can never be falsified.

Science, right?

You want to look at a very narrow interpretation "electronic vote-rigging" and that is flatly wrong.

"[T]he 4Chan[er] specifically said that this chaos would arise as a result of proof of electronic vote-rigging."

Nope, it was never asserted this would be as a result of proof of electronic vote-rigging.

The actual sentence you are referring to is this:

There is actionable intel that there will be widespread electronic voting fraud (which we've seen), and that Putin
will leak proof along with other dirt on certain candidates (in other-words Russia will leak details about the Clintons and the DNC -
aka Wikileaks), and the USA will collapse into civil #ing war (there's a rather dramatic uprising going on right
now).

So the attacks against the election system by Russia across numerous states election systems, as confirmed by the entire United States
intelligence community, isn't substantive in your opinion?

The hacking appears to have originated from within Russia; what is lacking is any proof that the Russian Government was behind it. Even the strongest
variation of this shaggy dog story, as provided in your second link, contains this disclaimer half-way down the page: “However, we are not now in
a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government,”

So, the 4Chan hoaxer predicted that proof would be forthcoming, and that Putin would also leak stuff on the candidates then the US would collapse into
civil war.

Reality-check: Some Russia-based hacking of a few databases, not all of which were electoral, no proof that such activities altered the outcome of the
election, no 'big reveal' from Putin, but some predictable demonstrations against Trump in heavily-Democrat urban areas.

I'm being generous when I observe that it's too early to call this a fulfillment of the 4Chan poster's "prediction."

Fraud [frawd] noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

There is no doubt whatsoever fraud has been perpetrated on a massive scale here.

There is actionable intel that there will be widespread electronic voting fraud, and that Putin will leak proof along with other dirt on
certain candidates, and the USA will collapse into civil #ing war.

Whether you choose to believe it was Putin or some "400lb hacker", reasonably intelligent people can make a determination about which is more likely
true.

I think it's also very remarkable that this Nostradamus of the Chans failed to include the name of the victorious candidate in this electoral
prediction. I mean, he appears to have known everything but the result, which he said was a foregone conclusion due to the hacking!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.